37124 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Notices 

Restoration Plan after it has been 

prepared. 

Administrative Record 

The Trustees have opened an 

Administrative Record in compliance 

with 15 CFR 990.45. The Administrative 

Record will include documents 

considered by the Trustees during the 

Preassessment, and Restoration 

Planning Phases of the NRDA performed 

in connection with the Incident. The 

Administrative Record will be 

augmented with additional information 

over the course of the NRDA process. 

The Administrative Record may be 

viewed at the following website: https:// 

www.diver.orr.noaa.gov/web/guest/ 

diver-admin-record/12302. 

Scott Lundgren, 

Director, Office of Response and Restoration, 

National Ocean Service, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14969 Filed 7–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JE–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB208] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Army Corps of 

Engineers Debris Dock Replacement 

Project, Sausalito, California 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to 

incidentally harass, by Level A and 

Level B harassment only, marine 

mammals during construction activities 

associated with the Debris Dock 

Replacement Project in Sausalito, 

California. 

DATES: This authorization is effective 

from September 1, 2021 through August 

31, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dwayne Meadows, Ph.D., Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427– 

8401. Electronic copies of the 

application and supporting documents, 

as well as a list of the references cited 

in this document, may be obtained 

online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case 

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization may be 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

Summary of Request 

On March 17, 2021, NMFS received 

an application from ACOE requesting an 

IHA to take small numbers of seven 

species of marine mammals incidental 

to pile driving associated with the 

Debris Dock Replacement Project. The 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on May 20, 2021. The ACOE’s 

request is for take of a small number of 

these species by Level A or Level B 

harassment. Neither the ACOE nor 

NMFS expects serious injury or 

mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

The purpose of the project is to 

replace the existing decaying dock and 

other onshore infrastructure used to 

move marine debris collected from San 

Francisco Bay onto land for disposal. 

The existing dock will be removed and 

replaced. The work will involve impact 

hammering 31 24-inch diameter 

concrete deck support piles and 17 14- 

inch diameter timber fender piles for the 

replacement dock and removal of the 

decayed dock by cutting or otherwise 

removing 31 18-inch diameter concrete 

deck support piles and 17 14-inch 

diameter timber fender piles. The ACOE 

recently informed us that three of the 

24-inch diameter concrete piles may be 

replaced with 18-inch diameter concrete 

piles, but we analyzed the more 

conservative case of all 24-inch 

diameter concrete piles. This 

construction work will take no more 

than 26 days of in-water pile work. A 

detailed description of the planned 

project is provided in the Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (86 

FR 28768; May 28, 2021). Since that 

time, no changes have been made to the 

planned activities. Therefore, a detailed 

description is not provided here. Please 

refer to that Federal Register notice for 

the description of the specific activity. 

The pile driving/removal can result in 

take of marine mammals from sound in 

the water which results in behavioral 

harassment or auditory injury. 

In summary, the project period 

includes 10 days of pile removal and 16 

days of pile installation activities for 

which incidental take authorization is 

requested. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL ACTIVITIES

Method Pile type Number 

of piles Minutes/strikes per pile Piles per day 

Duration 

(days) 

Cutting ................................... 18-inch concrete ................... 31 5 min ..................................... 10 7 

Cutting ................................... 14-inch timber ....................... 17 5 min ..................................... 10 3 

Impact Driving ....................... 24-inch concrete ................... 31 1,000 strikes ......................... 10 10 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Notices 37125 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL ACTIVITIES—Continued 

Method Pile type Number 

of piles Minutes/strikes per pile Piles per day 

Duration 

(days) 

Impact Driving ....................... 14-inch timber ....................... 17 1,000 strikes ......................... 10 6 

Totals .............................. ............................................... 96 ............................................... ........................ 26 

Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures are described in detail later in 

this document (please see Mitigation 

and Monitoring and Reporting). 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue 

an IHA to the ACOE was published in 

the Federal Register on May 28, 2021 

(86 FR 28768). That notice described, in 

detail, the ACOE’s activity, the marine 

mammal species that may be affected by 

the activity, and the anticipated effects 

on marine mammals. During the 30-day 

public comment period, NMFS received 

public comment from one commenter. 

The U.S. Geological Survey noted they 

have ‘‘no comment at this time’’. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and more 

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). 

Table 2 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in the project 

area in San Francisco Bay and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. For taxonomy, we follow 

Committee on Taxonomy (2020). PBR is 

defined by the MMPA as the maximum 

number of animals, not including 

natural mortalities, that may be removed 

from a marine mammal stock while 

allowing that stock to reach or maintain 

its optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’s SARs). While no 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

here, PBR and annual serious injury and 

mortality from anthropogenic sources 

are included here as gross indicators of 

the status of the species and other 

threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’s stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’s U.S. Pacific SARs and draft 

SARs (e.g., Caretta et al., 2020a and b). 

TABLE 2—SPECIES THAT SPATIALLY CO-OCCUR WITH THE ACTIVITY TO THE DEGREE THAT TAKE IS REASONABLY LIKELY

TO OCCUR

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance (CV, 

Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

Gray Whale ......................... Eschrichtius robustus ................ Eastern North Pacific ................ -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 

2016).

801 138 

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Bottlenose Dolphin ............. Tursiops truncatus .................... California Coastal ..................... -, -, N 453 (0.06, 346, 2011) ..... 2.7 >2.0 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise .................. Phocoena phocoena ................. San Francisco/Russian River ... -, -, N 9,886 (0.51, 2019) .......... 66 0 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

California Sea Lion ............. Zalophus californianus .............. United States ............................ -, -, N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 

2014).

14,011 >321 

Northern fur seal ................. Callorhinus ursinus ................... California ................................... -, D, N 14,050 (N/A, 7,524, 

2013).

451 1.8 

Eastern North Pacific ................ -, D, N 620,660 (0.2, 525,333, 

2016).

11,295 399 

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 

Northern elephant seal ....... Mirounga angustirostris ............ California Breeding ................... -, -, N 179,000 (N/A, 81,368, 

2010).

4,882 8.8 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I I 

I I I 
37126 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 2—SPECIES THAT SPATIALLY CO-OCCUR WITH THE ACTIVITY TO THE DEGREE THAT TAKE IS REASONABLY LIKELY

TO OCCUR—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance (CV, 

Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Harbor seal ......................... Phoca vitulina ........................... California ................................... -, -, N 30,968 (N/A, 27,348, 

2012).

1,641 43 

1—Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the 

ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or 

which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically 

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2—NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stockassessment-reports. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 3—These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual Mortality/Serious Injury (M/SI) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV 

associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 

Harbor seal, California sea lion, 

bottlenose dolphin and Harbor porpoise 

spatially co-occur with the activity to 

the degree that take is reasonably likely 

to occur, and we have proposed 

authorizing take of these species. For 

gray whale, northern fur seal and 

northern elephant seal, occurrence is 

such that take is possible, and we have 

proposed authorizing take of these 

species also. 

A detailed description of the of the 

species likely to be affected by the 

project, including brief introductions to 

the species and relevant stocks as well 

as available information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

information regarding local occurrence, 

were provided in the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (86 FR 

28768; May 28, 2021); since that time, 

we are not aware of any changes in the 

status of these species and stocks; 

therefore, detailed descriptions are not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for these 

descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS’ 

website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for 

generalized species accounts. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

the ACOE’s construction activities have 

the potential to result in behavioral 

harassment of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the survey area. The notice 

of proposed IHA (86 FR 28768; May 28, 

2021) included a discussion of the 

effects of anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and the potential effects of 

underwater noise from the ACOE’s 

construction on marine mammals and 

their habitat. That information and 

analysis is incorporated by reference 

into this final IHA determination and is 

not repeated here; please refer to the 

notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 28768; 

May 28, 2021). 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which will 

inform both NMFS’ consideration of 

‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as use of the 

acoustic source (i.e., vibratory or impact 

pile driving) has the potential to result 

in disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals. There is 

also some potential for auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to result for 

pinnipeds and harbor porpoise because 

predicted auditory injury zones are 

larger. The mitigation and monitoring 

measures are expected to minimize the 

severity of the taking to the extent 

practicable. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

these levels in a day; (3) the density or 

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the 

number of days of activities. We note 

that while these basic factors can 

contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of takes, 

additional information that can 

qualitatively inform take estimates is 

also sometimes available (e.g., previous 

monitoring results or average group 

size). Due to the lack of marine mammal 

density, NMFS relied on local 

occurrence data and group size to 

estimate take for some species. Below, 

we describe the factors considered here 

in more detail and present the proposed 

take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Notices 37127 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 

microPascal (mPa) (root mean square 

(rms)) for continuous (e.g., vibratory 

pile-driving) and above 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., 

impact pile driving) or intermittent (e.g., 

scientific sonar) sources. 

The ACOE’s proposed activity 

includes the use of continuous 

(underwater chainsaw and pile clippers) 

and impulsive (impact pile-driving) 

sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 

dB re 1 mPa (rms) thresholds are 

applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). The ACOE’s activity 

includes the use of impulsive (impact 

pile-driving) and non-impulsive (pile 

cutting methods) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in 

Table 3. The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 

of the thresholds are described in NMFS 

2018 Technical Guidance, which may 

be accessed at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance. 

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......................... Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................ Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................ Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ....................... Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................... Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should 

also be considered. 

Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 

In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure 

is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being 

included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated 

with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF 

cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for 

action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels 

and transmission loss coefficient. 

The sound field in the project area is 

the existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

proposed project. Marine mammals are 

expected to be affected via sound 

generated by the primary components of 

the project (i.e., impact pile driving, pile 

clippers and underwater chainsaws). 

In order to calculate distances to the 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment sound thresholds for the 

methods and piles being used in this 

project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring 

data from other locations to develop 

source levels for the various pile types, 

sizes and methods (see Table 4). Data for 

the pile clippers and underwater 

chainsaws come from data gathered at 

U.S. Navy projects in San Diego Bay 

(NAVFAC SW, 2020), the source levels 

used are from the averages of the 

maximum source levels measured, a 

somewhat more conservative measure 

than the median sound levels we 

typically use. The source level for an 

underwater chainsaw is 150 db RMS 

and the source level for a large pile 

clipper is 161 dB RMS (NAVFAC SW, 

2020). Because the ACOE’s as yet 

unhired contractor has not decided 

which of the various pile removal 

methods it will use, we only use a 

worst-case scenario of operation using 

the loudest sound producing method 

(large pile clippers) to consider the 

largest possible harassment zones and 

estimated take. 

TABLE 4—PROJECT SOUND SOURCE LEVELS

Method Pile type Estimated noise level Source 

Cutting ................................. 18-inch concrete ................ 161 dB RMS ...................... NAVFAC SW 2020. 

Cutting ................................. 14-inch timber .................... 161 dB RMS ...................... NAVFAC SW 2020. 

Impact Driving ...................... 24-inch concrete ................ 159 dB SEL; 184 dB Peak Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc., 2019.

Impact Driving ...................... 14-inch timber .................... 155 dB SEL; 175 dB Peak Table I.2–3 (CalTrans 2015). 

Note: SEL = single strike sound exposure level; dB Peak = peak sound level; RMS = root mean square. Impact driving source levels reduced 

by 5 dB to account for use of bubble curtain. 

Level B Harassment Zones 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
37128 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Notices 

where: 

TL = transmission loss in dB 

B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical 

spreading equals 15 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement 

The recommended TL coefficient for 

most nearshore environments is the 

practical spreading value of 15. This 

value results in an expected propagation 

environment that would lie between 

spherical and cylindrical spreading loss 

conditions, which is the most 

appropriate assumption for the ACOE’s 

proposed activity in the absence of 

specific modelling. 

The ACOE determined underwater 

noise would fall below the behavioral 

effects threshold of 160 dB RMS for 

impact driving at 22 m and the 120 dB 

rms threshold for pile cutting at 

5,412 m. It should be noted that based 

on the bathymetry and geography of San 

Francisco Bay, sound will not reach the 

full distance of the Level B harassment 

isopleths in all directions. 

Level A Harassment Zones 

When the NMFS Technical Guidance 

(2016) was published, in recognition of 

the fact that ensonified area/volume 

could be more technically challenging 

to predict because of the duration 

component in the new thresholds, we 

developed a User Spreadsheet that 

includes tools to help predict a simple 

isopleth that can be used in conjunction 

with marine mammal density or 

occurrence to help predict takes. We 

note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used for these tools, we anticipate that 

isopleths produced are typically going 

to be overestimates of some degree, 

which may result in some degree of 

overestimate of take by Level A 

harassment. However, these tools offer 

the best way to predict appropriate 

isopleths when more sophisticated 3D 

modeling methods are not available, and 

NMFS continues to develop ways to 

quantitatively refine these tools, and 

will qualitatively address the output 

where appropriate. For stationary 

sources such as impact pile driving or 

removal using any of the methods 

discussed above, NMFS User 

Spreadsheet predicts the closest 

distance at which, if a marine mammal 

remained at that distance the whole 

duration of the activity, it would not 

incur PTS. We used the User 

Spreadsheet to determine the Level A 

harassment isopleths. Inputs used in the 

User Spreadsheet or models are reported 

in Table 1 and the resulting isopleths 

are reported in Table 5 for each of the 

construction methods and pile types. 

TABLE 5—LEVEL A AND LEVEL B ISOPLETHS (METERS) FOR EACH PILE TYPE AND METHOD

Method Pile type 

Lowfrequency 

cetaceans 

Midfrequency 

cetaceans 

Highfrequency 

cetaceans 

Phocids Otariids Level B 

Cutting ................... 18-inch concrete ... 6 0.5 8.9 3.7 0.3 5412 

Cutting ................... 14-inch timber ....... 6 0.5 8.9 3.7 0.3 5412 

Impact Driving ....... 24-inch concrete ... 116.4 4.1 138.7 62.3 4.5 22 

Impact Driving ....... 14-inch timber ....... 63 2.2 75.1 33.7 2.5 22 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Calculation and Estimation 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

Density data for this species in the 

project vicinity do not exist. San 

Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) 

project monitoring showed two 

observations of this species over 6 days 

of monitoring in 2017 (CalTrans 2018). 

One common bottlenose dolphin is 

sighted with regularity near Alameda 

(GGCR 2016). Based on the regularity of 

the sighting in Alameda and the SFOBB 

observations of approximately 0.33 

dolphin a day, we authorize the Level 

B harassment take equivalent to 0.33 

dolphins per day for the 26 proposed 

days of the project, or 9 common 

bottlenose dolphin (Table 6). Because 

the Level A harassment zones are 

relatively small and we believe the 

Protected Species Observer (PSO) will 

be able to effectively monitor the Level 

A harassment zones, we do not 

authorize take by Level A harassment of 

bottlenose dolphins. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Density data for this species from 

SFOBB monitoring was 0.17/km2

(CalTrans 2018). Based on the different 

pile types and methods there are three 

different sized ensonified areas to be 

considered to estimate Level B 

harassment take (Table 8). 

Multiplication of the above density 

times the corresponding ensonified area 

and duration, summing the results for 

the three methods, and subtracting the 

overlap of Level A take (below) to avoid 

double-counting of take, leads to 

authorized Level B harassment take of 

21 harbor porpoise (Table 6). 

Similarly, calculating expected Level 

A harassment take as density times the 

corresponding Level A harassment 

ensonified area and duration for each 

method results in an estimate that less 

than one harbor porpoise may enter a 

Level A harassment zone during the 

project (see Table 14 of application). 

Given the relatively high density and 

larger size of the Level A isopleths for 

harbor porpoises (Table 5, highfrequency cetaceans) we consider Level 

A harassment take is a possibility. 

However, we recognize that harbor 

porpoises travel in groups of up to 10 

individuals and can be quick and 

somewhat cryptic, so there is potential 

that underwater mammals may go 

undetected before spotted in the Level 

A harassment and shutdown zone. 

Based on this observation we authorize 

Level A harassment take of 2 harbor 

porpoise. 

California Sea Lion 

Density data for this species from 

SFOBB monitoring was 0.16/km2

(CalTrans 2018). Based on the different 

pile types and methods there are three 

different sized ensonified areas to be 

considered to estimate Level B 

harassment take (Table 7). 

Multiplication of the above density 

times the corresponding ensonified area 

and duration, and summing the results 

for the three methods, and subtracting 

the overlap of Level A take (below) to 

avoid double-counting of take, leads to 

authorized Level B harassment take of 

20 California sea lions (Table 6). 

Similarly, calculating expected Level 

A harassment take as density times the 

corresponding Level A harassment 

ensonified area and duration for each 

method results in an estimate that less 

than one California sea lion will enter 

a Level A harassment zone (see Table 13 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Notices 37129 

of application). Given the relatively high 

density and behavior of California sea 

lions we consider Level A harassment 

take is a possibility. Based on this 

observation we authorize Level A 

harassment take of 2 California sea 

lions. 

Northern Fur Seal 

Density data for this species in the 

project vicinity do not exit. SFOBB 

monitoring showed no observations of 

this species (CalTrans 2018). None were 

observed for the Treasure Island Ferry 

Dock project in 2019 (Matt Osowski, 

personal communication). The Marine 

Mammal Center rescues about five 

northern fur seals in a year, and they 

occasionally rescue them from Yerba 

Buena Island and Treasure Island 

(TMMC, 2019). To be conservative we 

authorize Level B harassment take of 

three northern fur seals. Because the 

Level A harassment zones are relatively 

small and we believe the Protected 

Species Observer (PSO) will be able to 

effectively monitor the Level A 

harassment zones, and the species is 

rare, we do not authorize take by Level 

A harassment of northern fur seals. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Density data for this species in the 

project vicinity do not exist. SFOBB 

monitoring showed no observations of 

this species (CalTrans 2018). None were 

observed for the Treasure Island Ferry 

Dock project in 2019 (Matt Osowski, 

personal communication). Out of the 

approximately 100 annual northern 

elephant seal strandings in San 

Francisco Bay, approximately 10 

individuals strand nearby at Yerba 

Buena or Treasure Islands each year 

(TMMC, 2020). Therefore, we authorize 

the Level B harassment take of 5 

northern elephant seals. Because the 

Level A harassment zones are relatively 

small and we believe the PSO will be 

able to effectively monitor the Level A 

harassment zones, and the species is 

rare, we do not authorize take by Level 

A harassment of northern elephant 

seals. 

Harbor Seal 

Density data for this species from 

SFOBB monitoring was 3.92/km2

(CalTrans 2018). Based on the different 

pile types and methods there are three 

different sized ensonified areas to be 

considered to estimate Level B 

harassment take (Table 7). 

Multiplication of the above density 

times the corresponding ensonified area 

and duration, summing the results for 

the three methods, and subtracting the 

overlap of Level A take (below) to avoid 

double-counting of take, leads to 

authorized Level B harassment take of 

527 harbor seals (Table 6). 

Similarly, calculating expected Level 

A harassment take as density times the 

corresponding Level A harassment 

ensonified area and duration for each 

method results in an estimate that less 

than one harbor seal may enter a Level 

A harassment zone during the project 

(see Table 12 of application). Given the 

relatively high density and size of the 

Level A isopleths for harbor seals (Table 

5, phocid pinnipeds) we consider Level 

A harassment take is a possibility. We 

recognize that harbor seals can occur in 

moderate and rarely large size groups 

and can be quick and somewhat cryptic, 

so there is potential that underwater 

mammals may go undetected before 

spotted in the Level A harassment and 

shutdown zone. Based on this 

observation we authorize Level A 

harassment take of 2 harbor seals. 

Gray Whale 

Density data for this species in the 

project vicinity do not exist. SFOBB 

monitoring showed no observations of 

this species (CalTrans 2018). None were 

observed for the Treasure Island Ferry 

Dock project in 2019 (Matt Osowski, 

personal communication). 

Approximately 12 gray whales were 

stranded in San Francisco Bay from 

January to May of 2019 (TMMC, 2019) 

and four stranded in the vicinity on one 

week in 2021 (https://

www.washingtonpost.com/science/ 

2021/04/11/whales-sf-bay-beaches/). 

Because recent observations are not well 

understood, Sausalito sits near the 

entrance to the bay, and as a 

conservative measure, we authorize 

Level B harassment take of 2 gray 

whales. Because the Level A harassment 

zones are relatively small and we 

believe the PSO will be able to 

effectively monitor the Level A 

harassment zones, and the species is 

rare, we do not authorize take by Level 

A harassment of gray whales. 

TABLE 6—AUTHORIZED AMOUNT OF TAKING, BY LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES AND

STOCK AND PERCENT OF TAKE BY STOCK

Common name Scientific name Stock Level A 

harassment 

Level B 

harassment 

Percent of 

stock 

Harbor seal ............................ (Phoca vitulina) ..................... California Stock .................... 2 527 1.7 

Harbor porpoise ..................... (Phocoena phocoena) .......... San Francisco—Russian 

River Stock.

2 21 0.3 

California sea lion .................. (Zalophus californianus) ....... U.S. Stock ............................. 2 20 <0.1 

Gray whale ............................ (Eschrichtius robustus) ......... Eastern North Pacific Stock 0 2 <0.1 

Bottlenose dolphin ................. (Tursiops truncatus) .............. California Coastal Stock ....... 0 9 2 

Northern elephant seal .......... (Mirounga angustirostris) ...... California Breeding Stock ..... 0 5 <0.1 

Northern fur seal .................... (Callorhinus ursinus) ............. California and Eastern North 

Pacific Stocks.

0 3 <0.1 

TABLE 7—CALCULATIONS TO ESTIMATE LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKE

Harbor Seal Sea Lion Harbor 

Porpoise 

SFOBB Species density (animals/square kilometer (km2)) ......................................................... 3.96 0.16 0.17 

Days of Pile Driving/Cutting 

24-inch Concrete .................................................................................................................. 10 10 10 

14-inch Timber ...................................................................................................................... 6 6 6 

Pile Cutting ........................................................................................................................... 10 10 10 

Area of Isopleth in km2

24-inch Concrete .................................................................................................................. 0.00151 0.00151 0.00151 

14-inch Timber ...................................................................................................................... 0.00151 0.00151 0.00151 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
37130 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 7—CALCULATIONS TO ESTIMATE LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKE—Continued 

Harbor Seal Sea Lion Harbor 

Porpoise 

Pile Cutting ........................................................................................................................... 13.3456 13.3456 13.3456 

Per day take Level B 

24-inch Concrete .................................................................................................................. 0.006 0.0002 0.0003 

14-inch Timber ...................................................................................................................... 0.006 0.0002 0.0003 

Pile Cutting ........................................................................................................................... 52.8486 2.1353 2.2688 

Total Level B Take Calculated ...................................................................................... 528.58 21.36 22.69 

Total Level B Take Estimated ....................................................................................... 529 22 23 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned); 

and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

The following mitigation measures are 

in the IHA: 

• Avoid direct physical interaction 

with marine mammals during 

construction activity. If a marine 

mammal comes within 10 m of such 

activity, operations must cease and 

vessels must reduce speed to the 

minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions; 

• Conduct training between 

construction supervisors and crews and 

the marine mammal monitoring team 

and relevant ACOE staff prior to the 

start of all pile driving activity and 

when new personnel join the work, so 

that responsibilities, communication 

procedures, monitoring protocols, and 

operational procedures are clearly 

understood; 

• Pile driving activity must be halted 

upon observation of either a species for 

which incidental take is not authorized 

or a species for which incidental take 

has been authorized but the authorized 

number of takes has been met, entering 

or within the harassment zone; 

• The ACOE will establish and 

implement the shutdown zones 

indicated in Table 9. The purpose of a 

shutdown zone is generally to define an 

area within which shutdown of the 

activity would occur upon sighting of a 

marine mammal (or in anticipation of an 

animal entering the defined area). 

Shutdown zones typically vary based on 

the activity type and marine mammal 

hearing group. The ACOE wishes to 

simplify implementation of the 

relatively small shutdown zones and 

has proposed using a single shutdown 

zone distance for each activity rather 

than separate zones for each hearing 

group as we minimally require 

typically. Therefore the shutdown zones 

in Table 8 are based on the largest 

possible Level A harassment zones 

calculated from the isopleths in Table 6. 

• Employ PSOs and establish 

monitoring locations as described in the 

application and Section 5 of the IHA. 

The Holder must monitor the project 

area to the maximum extent possible 

based on the required number of PSOs, 

required monitoring locations, and 

environmental conditions for all pile 

driving and removal one PSO must be 

used. The PSO will be stationed as close 

to the activity as possible; 

• The placement of the PSO during 

all pile driving and removal and drilling 

activities will ensure that the entire 

shutdown zone is visible during pile 

installation. Should environmental 

conditions deteriorate such that marine 

mammals within the entire shutdown 

zone will not be visible (e.g., fog, heavy 

rain), pile driving and removal must be 

delayed until the PSO is confident 

marine mammals within the shutdown 

zone could be detected; 

• Monitoring must take place from 30 

minutes prior to initiation of pile 

driving activity through 30 minutes 

post-completion of pile driving activity. 

Pre-start clearance monitoring must be 

conducted during periods of visibility 

sufficient for the lead PSO to determine 

the shutdown zones clear of marine 

mammals. Pile driving may commence 

following 30 minutes of observation 

when the determination is made; 

• If pile driving is delayed or halted 

due to the presence of a marine 

mammal, the activity may not 

commence or resume until either the 

animal has voluntarily exited and been 

visually confirmed beyond the 

shutdown zone or 15 minutes have 

passed without re-detection of the 

animal; 

• The ACOE must use soft start 

techniques when impact pile driving. 

Soft start requires contractors to provide 

an initial set of three strikes at reduced 

energy, followed by a 30-second waiting 

period, then two subsequent reducedenergy strike sets. A soft start must be 

implemented at the start of each day’s 

impact pile driving and at any time 

following cessation of impact pile 

driving for a period of 30 minutes or 

longer; 

• Use a bubble curtain during impact 

pile driving and ensure that it is 

operated as necessary to achieve 

optimal performance, and that no 

reduction in performance may be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Notices 37131 

attributable to faulty deployment. At a 

minimum, the ACOE must adhere to the 

following performance standards: The 

bubble curtain must distribute air 

bubbles around 100 percent of the piling 

circumference for the full depth of the 

water column. The lowest bubble ring 

must be in contact with the substrate for 

the full circumference of the ring, and 

the weights attached to the bottom ring 

shall ensure 100 percent substrate 

contact. No parts of the ring or other 

objects shall prevent full substrate 

contact. Air flow to the bubblers must 

be balanced around the circumference 

of the pile. 

TABLE 8—SHUTDOWN ZONES (METERS) FOR EACH PILE TYPE AND

METHOD

Pile size, type, and method Shutdown 

zone 

24-inch concrete, impact ...... 140 

14-inch timber, impact .......... 80 

14 and 18-inch pile cutting ... 10 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has determined that the 

mitigation measures provide the means 

effecting the least practicable impact on 

the affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the proposed action area. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

• Monitoring must be conducted by 

qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, in 

accordance with the following: PSOs 

must be independent (i.e., not 

construction personnel) and have no 

other assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods. At least one PSO must have 

prior experience performing the duties 

of a PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization. Other PSOs may 

substitute other relevant experience, 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field), or training. PSOs must 

be approved by NMFS prior to 

beginning any activity subject to this 

IHA. 

• PSOs must record all observations 

of marine mammals as described in the 

Section 5 of the IHA, regardless of 

distance from the pile being driven. 

PSOs shall document any behavioral 

reactions in concert with distance from 

piles being driven or removed; 

PSOs must have the following 

additional qualifications: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was not 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior; and 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary; 

• The ACOE must establish the 

following monitoring locations. For all 

pile driving and cutting activities, a 

minimum of one PSO must be assigned 

to the active pile driving or cutting 

location to monitor the shutdown zones 

and as much of the Level B harassment 

zones as possible. 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving and removal activities, or 

60 days prior to a requested date of 

issuance of any future IHAs for projects 

at the same location, whichever comes 

first. The report will include an overall 

description of work completed, a 

narrative regarding marine mammal 

sightings, and associated PSO data 

sheets. Specifically, the report must 

include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including the number and type of piles 

driven or removed and by what method 

(i.e., impact or cutting) and the total 

equipment duration for cutting for each 

pile or total number of strikes for each 

pile (impact driving); 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; 

• Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance; 

• Upon observation of a marine 

mammal, the following information: 

Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) 

and PSO location and activity at time of 

sighting; Time of sighting; Identification 

of the animal(s) (e.g., genus/species, 

lowest possible taxonomic level, or 

unidentified), PSO confidence in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
37132 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Notices 

identification, and the composition of 

the group if there is a mix of species; 

Distance and bearing of each marine 

mammal observed relative to the pile 

being driven for each sighting (if pile 

driving was occurring at time of 

sighting); Estimated number of animals 

(min/max/best estimate); Estimated 

number of animals by cohort (adults, 

juveniles, neonates, group composition, 

etc.); Animal’s closest point of approach 

and estimated time spent within the 

harassment zone; Description of any 

marine mammal behavioral observations 

(e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding 

or traveling), including an assessment of 

behavioral responses thought to have 

resulted from the activity (e.g., no 

response or changes in behavioral state 

such as ceasing feeding, changing 

direction, flushing, or breaching); 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected within the harassment zones, 

by species; and 

• Detailed information about any 

implementation of any mitigation 

triggered (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a 

description of specific actions that 

ensued, and resulting changes in 

behavior of the animal(s), if any. 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft final 

report will constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

IHA-holder must immediately cease the 

specified activities and report the 

incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR) 

(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov), 

NMFS and to West Coast Regional 

Stranding Coordinator as soon as 

feasible. If the death or injury was 

clearly caused by the specified activity, 

the ACOE must immediately cease the 

specified activities until NMFS is able 

to review the circumstances of the 

incident and determine what, if any, 

additional measures are appropriate to 

ensure compliance with the terms of the 

IHA. The IHA-holder must not resume 

their activities until notified by NMFS. 

The report must include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status 

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

Pile driving and removal activities 

have the potential to disturb or displace 

marine mammals. Specifically, the 

project activities may result in take, in 

the form of Level A and Level B 

harassment from underwater sounds 

generated from pile driving and 

removal. Potential takes could occur if 

individuals are present in the ensonified 

zone when these activities are 

underway. 

The takes from Level A and Level B 

harassment would be due to potential 

behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. 

No mortality is anticipated given the 

nature of the activity and measures 

designed to minimize the possibility of 

injury to marine mammals. The 

potential for harassment is minimized 

through the construction method and 

the implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures (see Mitigation 

section). 

The Level A harassment zones 

identified in Table 5 are based upon an 

animal exposed to impact pile driving 

multiple piles per day. Considering 

duration of impact driving each pile (up 

to 20 minutes) and breaks between pile 

installations (to reset equipment and 

move pile into place), this means an 

animal would have to remain within the 

area estimated to be ensonified above 

the Level A harassment threshold for 

multiple hours. This is highly unlikely 

given marine mammal movement 

throughout the area. If an animal was 

exposed to accumulated sound energy, 

the resulting PTS would likely be small 

(e.g., PTS onset) at lower frequencies 

where pile driving energy is 

concentrated, and unlikely to result in 

impacts to individual fitness, 

reproduction, or survival. 

The nature of the pile driving project 

precludes the likelihood of serious 

injury or mortality. For all species and 

stocks, take would occur within a 

limited, confined area (north-central 

San Francisco Bay including 

Richardson’s Bay) of the stock’s range. 

Level A and Level B harassment will be 

reduced to the level of least practicable 

adverse impact through use of 

mitigation measures described herein. 

Further the amount of take authorized is 

extremely small when compared to 

stock abundance. 

Behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to pile driving at the project 

site, if any, are expected to be mild and 

temporary. Marine mammals within the 

Level B harassment zone may not show 

any visual cues they are disturbed by 

activities (as noted during modification 

to the Kodiak Ferry Dock) or could 

become alert, avoid the area, leave the 

area, or display other mild responses 

that are not observable such as changes 

in vocalization patterns. Given the short 

duration of noise-generating activities 

per day and that pile driving and 

removal would occur across nine 

months, any harassment would be 

temporary. There are no other areas or 

times of known biological importance 

for any of the affected species. 

In addition, it is unlikely that minor 

noise effects in a small, localized area of 

habitat would have any effect on the 

stocks’ ability to recover. In 

combination, we believe that these 

factors, as well as the available body of 

evidence from other similar activities, 

demonstrate that the potential effects of 

the specified activities will have only 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Notices 37133 

minor, short-term effects on individuals. 

The specified activities are not expected 

to impact rates of recruitment or 

survival and will therefore not result in 

population-level impacts. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• Authorized Level A harassment 

would be very small amounts and of 

low degree; 

• No important habitat areas have 

been identified within the project area; 

• For all species, San Francisco Bay 

is a very small and peripheral part of 

their range; 

• The ACOE would implement 

mitigation measures such as bubble 

curtains, soft-starts, and shut downs; 

and 

• Monitoring reports from similar 

work in San Francisco Bay have 

documented little to no effect on 

individuals of the same species 

impacted by the specified activities. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the proposed activity 

will have a negligible impact on all 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers and so, 

in practice, where estimated numbers 

are available, NMFS compares the 

number of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The amount of take NMFS authorizes 

is below one third of the estimated stock 

abundance of all species (in fact, take of 

individuals is less than 10 percent of the 

abundance of the affected stocks, see 

Table 6). This is likely a conservative 

estimate because they assume all takes 

are of different individual animals 

which is likely not the case. Some 

individuals may return multiple times 

in a day, but PSOs would count them as 

separate takes if they cannot be 

individually identified. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS finds that small numbers of 

marine mammals will be taken relative 

to the population size of the affected 

species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the West Coast Region 

Protected Resources Division Office, 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is authorized or expected to 

result from this activity. Therefore, 

NMFS has determined that formal 

consultation under section 7 of the ESA 

is not required for this action. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

determined that the issuance of the 

proposed IHA qualifies to be 

categorically excluded from further 

NEPA review. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to the ACOE 

for the potential harassment of small 

numbers of seven marine mammal 

species incidental to the Debris Dock 

Replacement project in Sausalito, CA, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting 

requirements are followed. 

Dated: July 8, 2021. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14980 Filed 7–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB199] 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council’s Summer 

Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass 

Advisory Panel will hold a public 

webinar meeting, jointly with the 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission’s Summer Flounder, Scup, 

and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panel. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Thursday, July 29, 2021, from 3 p.m. 

until 5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held 

via webinar and connection information 

can be accessed at: https://

www.mafmc.org/council-events/2021/ 

joint-sfsbsb-ap-meeting-jul29. 

Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, 800 N State 

Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; 

telephone: (302) 674–2331; 

www.mafmc.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1